BusTalk

[timecruncher]

Last year it was fuel prices (and, to a lesser extent, costs of health insurance and pensions thanks to the Wall Street debacle), this year it is diminishing funding dollars because of (choose any that apply): lower property evaluations; less consumer spending -- hence, lower sales tax revenues; reduced municipal and/or state tax reciepts and resulting reduced $$ going to transit agencies.

What I find interesting from a transit administration point of view, and as a long-time transit advocate, is that transit agencies, like government, tend to spend every last penny they get when they get it, rather than trying to operate within means and save for lean years.

Thus, we have transit systems building and operating rail systems -- mostly light rail -- that cannot fully support their bus operations, and costly service expansions where there simply is not enough demand for service.

Furthermore, American transit systems seem to cling to the notion that transit should be so dirt cheap as to not even cover half of the out-of-pocket operating costs. While low fares are certainly a good thing, they are far out of line with costs of operations pretty much at every urban transit agency south of the Canadian border.

Think about it:
At most transit agencies we have too many administrative staff and huge marketing and planning departments; We have General Managers and Executive Directors and CEOs who have little or no actual hands-on transit operating experience; We have hard-fought collective bargaining agreements that enable and even encourage workers to "cheat the system;" and we have a Congress that places costly and unfunded service and equipment restrictions on the industry that probably adds 15% or more to the cost of providing basic service. Hell, it costs a sizeable chunk of operating budget simply to gather and report to the FTA data that is meaningless such as the National Transit Database info.

While APTA sends out press releases about wonderful achievements in transit (they never say anything negative), the industry is falling apart with the political drama playing out in damn near every city as funding falls far short of operating budgets. We are all facing service reductions, fare increases and, in many cases, layoffs and reductions in staff.

Not the kind of stuff you want to read about on Monday morning, eh?

For the time-being, forget about Gillig vs. New Flyer vs. Nova vs NABI. Lets have some discussion about how the industry can survive for a few more years by learning from its mistakes.

My 2-cents' worth:
1. Determine a sustainable operating and capital budget;
2. Realign service to areas where ridership justifies operation. You simply cannot serve every corner of your service area;
3. Maintain equipment with the goal of getting 15-18 years normal service life out of them (this one will be difficult to achieve, since so many transit agencies don't understand the notion of preventative maintenance!);
4. Equipment must be clean before leaving the service base!
5. Operations personnel -- clerks, dispatchers, operators and road supervisors -- must be adequately trained in both safety and customer service (annoying as passengers can be, they are the reason we are here);
6. Fares should be high enough to cover as close to 50% of operating costs as possible. Right now, I'd say that $2.25 - $2.75 is a reasonable amount to pay for transit use without transfer privileges. Transfers invite fare fraud and should be eliminated anyway. $5.00 - $6.00 is reasonable for a day pass. Reduced fares for students, the elderly and handicapped should be subsidized by funding outside of the transit system. In other words, if you want lower fares for any specific group, advocates for those groups should pay the difference between normal fares and the reduced fares 100% to the transit agency on a monthly basis.

Scary, isn't it? Make public transit accountable for its costs? Make it truly a service? Make it as efficient as possible? I think it is imperative for the survival of the industry.

There are 'bound to be other good ideas out there from fans as well as grunts in this business. Try to keep the 'flaming down and think about your replies. Remember, too, that the ADA is with us forever -- so trying to eliminate that is out of play altogether.

timecruncher
Schedulers give you the runs!

[Dieseljim]

You hit the nail right on the head. Too many systems are top heavy in administrators and know nothing CEO's who have no business running a transit system. I could not have said it better myself. Keep up the great work.

[ripta42]

I pretty much agree except on transfers. Paying extra for a transfer made sense when almost everyone was coming down the spoke and into the hub. Land use patterns, and hence trips, are more complex now, as are route structures, and paid transfers don't make sense in a lot of cases. It was a hot issue in Chicago when transfers were eliminated for customers paying cash, because the people the most effected by the change were those in the poorest areas of the city, where it's common to have to take two buses to get to a train. The Tribune even found the one person in the city who relied on three buses to get to the grocery store, who would then have to pay $12 for the trip!

Interlining complicates matters even further, where you can "transfer" from one route to another without paying extra. In Rhode Island, this means you can travel sixteen miles on three different routes through four cities for $1.75, while a mile-long crosstown trip would cost $2.25. Add into the mix local routes that travel up to 36 miles and express routes up to 43 miles, all for the same $1.75, and you see why paid transfers are inequitable. Electronic fare collection makes transfer abuse a lot harder and should lead to the expansion of free transfers.

I'd also like to add to your list that planning departments should use population, land use, and survey data to plan routes and adjust service instead of ridership trends. Too frequently service is cut due to "insufficient ridership," which then drives more people off the bus, which leads to further service cuts, etc. My local route is crowded during the day when it runs on 18 to 20 minute headways, and it's empty evenings and weekends when it runs every 50 to 70 minutes. It isn't because the latent demand isn't there.

[timecruncher]

It can be argued that transfers should be cost-free because they are necessary when transit does not provide a one-seat ride from origin to destination.

Problem is that in most cities, transfer abuse is rampant and too costly to sustain. Even with electronic fareboxes and their read/write capability, round-trip rides are difficult, if not impossible to eliminate. For every bogus ride taken revenue equal to no less than half of the original fare is lost. Even with automatic time limits on these magnetic cards, a customer can easily allow a transfer to expire with the lengthy headways most of us live with outside of the transit operations in larger cities.

This is why I prefer the 'Day Pass' alternative which is also possible and easy to police with the newer generation of farebox. Price it at about 2.5 x base fare and chances are the fare evader is not going to spend that amount for joy riding unless he or she plans to use the pass for at least two rides (one to, one from).

I must admit that the bus driver in me has seen a lot of fare abuse over the years, and besides warping my mind, it has shown to me the potential loss of millions (that's right, 7 digits!) of dollars** of lost revenue.

Add that to a transit system like mine where operators are never backed up by supervision or management in a fare dispute, and you have people getting on the bus showing pretty much anything to the operator for a fare. Big culture change is needed...

timecruncher

** Definition of "millions of dollars:" The amount spent by our current president and Congress in about the time it takes to yawn and take two sips of coffee in the morning before getting down to the real job of wasting our tax dollars...

[ripta42]

The solution to round-trip "abuse" of transfers is simple - accept it. A paid fare could be a license to board transit vehicles an unlimited amount of times within a specified amount of time - say, two hours. Sure, you would lose revenue from transit-dependent riders who are currently paying double, but you'll probably also gain revenue by luring choice riders who might pay $2 for a short trip but not $4.

I support day passes, too, but not as a replacement for transfers. A trip is a trip is a trip.

[RailBus63]

I agree with your approach, Cliff - transit definitely needs to be run as more of a business and less of a social service agency if it is going to survive the lean years. I don't believe in keeping fares for everybody low because of the poor - significant revenue is lost from suburban commuters, college students and others who can afford to pay more. There simply has to be a better way of subsidizing transportation for low-income residents based on need.

I'm also annoyed by the increasing number of transit agencies that are overspending on hybrid an/or 'BRT' buses and the state and federal government agencies that are allowing them to do so. It's bad enough that taxpayers have to pay for all of the EPA and ADA mandated extras - do we really need buses with frameless windows that don't open (thus ensuring that the bus will have to be taken out of service when the air conditioning fails), plastic front and rear ends fascias that will undoubtedly be more expensive to repair when an accident occurs, etc.?

Your point about free transfers did get a rise out of me, though! The idea of charging extra for transfers (or not having transfers at all) has always bugged me - I believe a passenger should pay a single fare for a trip from Point A to Point B regardless of how many transfers are required (within reason). That said, abuse of free transfers annoys me equally, so if the newer electronic transfers cannot control most abuse, then I could be convinced to go with a Day Pass as the next-best alternative.

[kevlaf983]

[timecruncher]

You're right. Canada figured all of this out years ago. Heck, they're still running stuff we retired 20-25 years ago after running for 15 years! And it looks good.

But look at most Canadian systems' route and schedule structures -- routes are laid out in a far more logical manner, with few, if any, variations from trip to trip. Headways are consistent and almost always 'clocked,' and fares are high enough to cover significant portions of their operating costs.

Most Canadian systems have schedulers who understand running times based on time of day and traffic, and who also understand that simplicity is far easier for the public to understand. Its all in the training.

You don't have to look far to find schedules that simply do not work in the US. Some large transit systems have the same running times for long routes at 5:00am as they do at 3:00pm as they do at 5:15pm, etc. You're either running early and killing time at every due point or your running late and catching heck from every other person who boards!

You can also tell the systems where nobody in management has the slightest clue as to what they are doing. Probably the worst I've seen is the transit system in Rochester, MN. Look at the route map, then try to figure out the schedules. Routes have different numbers in different directions, and totally different numbers on Saturdays than on weekdays. It is nuts!

http://www.rochesterbus.com/

By the way, it is no coincidence that the two largest scheduling software vendors to the transit industry are from Canada as well.

Oh well. Good discussion so far. Bus operators? What say ye?

timecruncher

[RailBus63]

For years, the big Canadian transit agencies were noted for their professionalism and no-nonsense attitude. Perhaps it is because most of the major transit agencies up north went public early and never bothered with the American fiction that transit should be profitable. Thus, they didn't experience the downfall of the 1950's and 1960's the way most U.S. transit companies did, and for years they seemed to have been spared the well-intentioned but misguided ideas that permeated the 1970's down here (the feds pushing Transbus, Advanced Design Buses and Boeing LRV's, fare-free transit in some cities, groovy paint schemes, the rapid growth of marketing departments, etc.). The TTC was almost stubbornly stodgy into the 1980's with its maroon and cream paint scheme and its clean but utilitarian subway cars and stations.

Unfortunately, much seems to have changed over the past several decades. The province of Ontario cut operational funding in the 1990's and agencies like the TTC have never fully caught up since. Toronto has opened one minor subway line in recent years and while it's great for bus fans that the TTC still operates GM New Look coaches, the sad fact is they do so out of necessity because they never have enough funds to update the fleet. Politicians also seem to be in the driver's seat in many cities, and one wonders how much longer the professional managers will be able to hold sway over the impulses of those out to gather votes or build monuments to themselves.

Perhaps most ominously, suburban sprawl has come to Metropolitan Toronto with a vengeance. I've had a first-hand view of this since the 1980's as I've made numerous trips north to visit my wife's cousins. The growth of subdivisions far beyond the center city has continued almost unabated as Metro Toronto's population increased 36 percent from 1986 to 2001. The TTC, Mississauga Transit, York Regional Transit and other operators are trying their best to link all of these areas together, but the low density of these vast residential neighborhoods does not favor transit and many trips to downtown or employment centers are painfully long. Not surprisingly, the automobile's share of daily trips in the area increased from 72.1 percent to 79.1 percent from 1986-2001, while transit's share of trips fell from 21.6 percent to 15.7 percent (www.gttconline.com/files/20071130miller.ppt). The horrendous daily congestion on the 401 and other area highways does not seem to dim the local population's desire to live in suburban and fringe areas. Absent the political will to make some difficult choices and stick to them, I don't see this ending well.

[Bill D]

From my perspective, the industry and government needs to get its act together and eliminate the wasteful spending, especially on expensive projects which are designed to boost the politicians' egos more than actually expand service in a meaningful way.

On the subject of transfers, any thoughts on charging a nominal fee for a transfer, as some systems do? I have seen our operators issue blocks of transfers before arriving at busy stops, and then hand them out to passengers as they pay their fare, regardless of whether the person actually needs a transfer. This practice encourages abuse of the system. Charging, even a small amount, for the transfer would cause passengers to think twice before requesting one, and discourage operators from handing them out like candy.

Unless those of us in the industry show that we are serious about eliminating waste, how can we expect the riders to pick up more of the cost?

Bill

[timecruncher]

Sprawl in the greater Toronto area is fueled by the same insane inflation of housing costs nearer to the city that has been experienced in the US. It isn't so much that people like to commute 30-50 miles one-way to their jobs, but that affordable housing is nearly impossible to find anywhere within the TTC service area.

I've spoken with TTC operators who live as far away as Guelph (45 miles) and Barrie (65 miles) just to have a home they can afford.

Reminds me of VTA over in Santa Clara County, California -- where there is parking provided at VTA facilities for RVs owned by employees who live in Sacramento, Stockton or Fresno because even at VTA wages -- highest-paid transit workers in the nation -- they cannot afford to live in the county, and that's even after the dot-bomb!

But about those transfers...

A number of cities have already done away with them for the reasons I have stated. The largest I know of is MTA in Baltimore, but a number of mid-sized transit systems have also gone transfer-free: Jacksonville, Nashville, Indianapolis and Albany, NY come to mind. I believe DART down in Dallas is also transfer-free. All of these systems have the new generation fareboxes where operators can issue an all-day pass, of course.

timecruncher

[HwyHaulier]

timecruncher -

Geez! What a breath of fresh air! I'm just not up to getting into detailed discourse of this most vexing of sets of problems (as too much,
otherwise, on the plate)...

In my own analysis, consideration of why the privately held systems went into inevitable crash and burn. So much of it directly traced to
the somewhat clumsy system of classic regulation. The motor cargo carriers, as well as a very large Class 1 Railroad in its passenger
business, were on to the problem.

That is, classic regulation did not do well with the inexorable inflation in costs of new equipment. Think of any example. Take a piece of
equipment, put it in service. Subsequent, much TLC in needed and continuing upkeep and repair. With that fact set, a unit would deliver
twenty to twenty-five years of daily use.

The "back end" pain and suffering. Just try to buy a new piece of replacement equipment at same price as the old one. Lotsa' Luck!
Problem is, (within US) Treasury (IRS) rules allowed accumulation of a depreciation accounts, at acquired values of equipment. So, the
replacement buyer always came up short! There was no tolerance in old time regulation rate making to include reserves for anticipated
replacement costs...

So, today. Why not just "bite the bullet" and use 100% farebox recovery rates? Data on heavy, well performing, shorter routes can,
apparently, match it. There are a great number of operations that can stand alone, provided someone else is taking the risks of currency
inflation on Capital Assets base. (Which, otherwise, makes a solid case for leasing, not ownership, of equipment.)

On an old history note, the celebrated National City Lines people were on to it by 1952! They were quite aware the "public transit", so
called business opportunity (so to speak) was in "game over" by that date. The had people they had to answer to...

Also, what is hinted here, too, is the present T/A people evidently without a lot of strong stomachs. We lost a longer haul (circa 30 miles)
commute bus running thru here several times daily. It became entangled in State budget cutting nonsense, and so much for the riders.
All that needed be done is for the T/A to explain it needed higher fares on the reasonably priced service. Sadly, this ain't a John Wayne
movie. No one to be found to suck it up, and explain the problem!

...................Vern...............

[Dieseljim]

When it comes to transportation matters, the lack of common sense among most politicians is one reason I have such low regard for them and consdider most of them to be little more than glorified prostitutes, panderers, drunken or coked up swills and with utter contempt, no less. Some goes for who ever designed some of the buses plying the streets; most of them are pieces of junk compared to the "new look' and "old look" designs by GM, Mack, Twin and others. 25 years service was often gotten out of many of these buses, try that with some of the junk plying the streets today. To satisfy ADA requirements, I would but the chair lift behind the front door or use a retractable ramp at the door on a Fishbowl or Old look design. I saw a picture of an old look bus modified with a wheel chair lift that was installed behind the front door in such a way as not to detract from the bus's overall appearance. So it can be done, just a little common sense in implementing such requirements would have gone along way. Too many politicians are sitting on their brains, lol.

[ripta42]

[ripta42]